By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - What is a gimmick? Are gimmicks really negative to the industry?

Tagged games:

fory77 on 19 November 2014

Controllers are a gimmick, Gaming is a gimmick, Breathing is a gimmick, Life is a gimmick.



Around the Network
*Sound Of Rain on 19 November 2014

I don't care for the word myself as it's typically thrown around just to mock something.

With that said, my personal idea of a gimmick is something that is added just for the sake of it in order to try & get attention.

In gaming, I don't consider the Wii Remote a gimmick. It actually did add something unique & different while certainly enhancing gameplay for many games. The DS having two screens & a touch screen also actually added to the games and can't be considered a gimmick. (To me)

The 3D in the 3DS is basically as gimmicky as you can get. Is it kind of cool? I'd say yeah. It's pretty neat. It adds practically nothing gameplay-wise though. It was an unnecessary feature added in an attempt to create some buzz. (In my opinion of course)

The GamePad feels like it was just thrown in there in an attempt to look new too. Fortunately, the Off-TV feature renders it actually worthwhile. It should've been an optional add-on but it's not a gimmick.

Gimmicks are everywhere though. Miley's Wrecking Ball video was an obvious one...it worked though.



teigaga on 19 November 2014

Gimmicks aren't inherently bad, but the norm is to call a good gimmick innovative, whereas a bad one simply remains a gimmick.The negative sentiment comes from something being shallow, devoid of substance, its grabs attention but offers no real value I.e Vita's back touch pad is said to be a gimmick instead of being called innovative. It doesn't offer much to most games and normally isn't a reliable form of input. Not to say its never useful, just that it mostly isn't.



Intrinsic on 19 November 2014
djcaetano said:

  1. I believe the gamepad adds a lot to the game experience, when executed right. It adds to the immersion so much more than rumble. It may be a gameplay changer.

    2. Well, the main fact is not that those things are on the gamepad "per se", but the fact you will not pause the game for nothing. The game just goes on. You have to coordinate your gameplay managing your inventory and locating through a map while avoiding enemies and without stopping the clock. To some degree this can be achieved without the gamepad, but not to the same extent and not with the same quality and immersion.

  3. *It does not make games easier*, but instead make them more "real". And reality is somewhat harder than the usual artificial "pause-select-item-unpause" or "pause-look-at-the-map-unpause" gameplay. The player must keep track of things happening outside its main view... and when managing his inventory, the player must not forgot what is happening around him.

  1. No. It does not add more immersion than teh rumble controller. The whole idea of a second screen actually lends itself to doing nothing more than breakiing immersion when you think of it. Hell, even Hideo Kojima said so, and if you read what he said you will find that it makes sense.
  2. Everything you just pointed out in this point, doesn't need a gamepad to accomplish nor does having a gamepad make any better. Especialy if being used the way you describe. If continuity is what you are after, then being able to display all that information on your primary screen while you can simultaneously see all that is happenning around you is always going to be better than having the ganmer switch viewpoints between two completely diferent screens.
  3. Make a game unnecesarily harder is not necesarily a good thing. Its a cumbersome unnecesary way to do things that are already being done just fine with modern game UI designs. Games ae actually trying to completely move away form lots of onscreen furniture and employ very intuitive button mapping for rapid info or item navigation. Thats the growing trend with modern games. Having a completely seperate screen to house all that on screen furniture and require display hopping is a very big step backwards IMO.


djcaetano on 19 November 2014
Intrinsic said:
  1. No. It does not add more immersion than teh rumble controller. The whole idea of a second screen actually lends itself to doing nothing more than breakiing immersion when you think of it. Hell, even Hideo Kojima said so, and if you read what he said you will find that it makes sense.
  2. Everything you just pointed out in this point, doesn't need a gamepad to accomplish nor does having a gamepad make any better. Especialy if being used the way you describe. If continuity is what you are after, then being able to display all that information on your primary screen while you can simultaneously see all that is happenning around you is always going to be better than having the ganmer switch viewpoints between two completely diferent screens.
  3. Make a game unnecesarily harder is not necesarily a good thing. Its a cumbersome unnecesary way to do things that are already being done just fine with modern game UI designs. Games ae actually trying to completely move away form lots of onscreen furniture and employ very intuitive button mapping for rapid info or item navigation. Thats the growing trend with modern games. Having a completely seperate screen to house all that on screen furniture and require display hopping is a very big step backwards IMO.

  Yeah, I always thought manual gear is a way to make driving games cumbersome in an unnecessary way. Lets all drive in "automatic" gear mode. ;P

  But I am cool with your opinion. :)



Around the Network
Ninja~Monkey on 19 November 2014

Apparently a gimmick is what people say it is... It doesn't matter if it's innovation or something old but improved. In the end it's always a gimmick... or so it seems if the people saying it is a gimmick were correct that is. I think people tend to say it's a gimmick just because they want to have reasons not to get the specific product/brand while "protecting" their own product/brand

That's my take of it.. in short



Blob on 19 November 2014
Intrinsic said:
djcaetano said:

  1. I believe the gamepad adds a lot to the game experience, when executed right. It adds to the immersion so much more than rumble. It may be a gameplay changer.

    2. Well, the main fact is not that those things are on the gamepad "per se", but the fact you will not pause the game for nothing. The game just goes on. You have to coordinate your gameplay managing your inventory and locating through a map while avoiding enemies and without stopping the clock. To some degree this can be achieved without the gamepad, but not to the same extent and not with the same quality and immersion.

  3. *It does not make games easier*, but instead make them more "real". And reality is somewhat harder than the usual artificial "pause-select-item-unpause" or "pause-look-at-the-map-unpause" gameplay. The player must keep track of things happening outside its main view... and when managing his inventory, the player must not forgot what is happening around him.

 

  1. No. It does not add more immersion than teh rumble controller. The whole idea of a second screen actually lends itself to doing nothing more than breakiing immersion when you think of it. Hell, even Hideo Kojima said so, and if you read what he said you will find that it makes sense.
  2. Everything you just pointed out in this point, doesn't need a gamepad to accomplish nor does having a gamepad make any better. Especialy if being used the way you describe. If continuity is what you are after, then being able to display all that information on your primary screen while you can simultaneously see all that is happenning around you is always going to be better than having the ganmer switch viewpoints between two completely diferent screens.
  3. Make a game unnecesarily harder is not necesarily a good thing. Its a cumbersome unnecesary way to do things that are already being done just fine with modern game UI designs. Games ae actually trying to completely move away form lots of onscreen furniture and employ very intuitive button mapping for rapid info or item navigation. Thats the growing trend with modern games. Having a completely seperate screen to house all that on screen furniture and require display hopping is a very big step backwards IMO.

 


Actually swapping between items in WWHD was great with the gamepad, no need to navigate menus just a quick touch and it was done. Sure it's not what was promised but I found it to be a benefit. Off screen play is also quite nice.



Ninja~Monkey on 19 November 2014

I suppose in my own opinion a gimmick is what makes a device unique, like the Wii U's Gamepad Controller, The Xbox One's kinect and the PS4's... (someone fill in the gap there, I don't know too much about the ps4 yet). Anyway a gimmick isn't a bad thing, it's a good thing IMO. People are just tossing out the word like it's something bad, while I choose to see it as unique to the system or product. Surely some gimmicks are bad and some are good



Raven on 19 November 2014
Ka-pi96 said:
That definition described it pretty well. Things like motion controls, kinect, gamepad, PS eye etc are gimmicks, they were intentionally made to try and bring in extra attention and a new audience.

They can be good for sales, so that at least is a good part about them. But yeah, I hate gimmicks, I want things that appeal to the existing audience rather than things meant just to pull in people that weren't really into gaming.

The definition of a gimmick would include innovations like shoulder buttons, analog sticks, analog triggers, and controller rumble as well. Not all gimmicks are a bad thing if they're used properly.



VGShare: Screenshot/Gameplay Sharing Thread | Club Nintendo | Official VGC Discord 

ICStats on 19 November 2014

Gimmick usually carries a negative tone.  It's something that looks clever, attracts attention, but is really a deception in that it turns out not to be as useful as it seemed.  Accessories are not necessarily gimmicks.

For example something like NES Zapper or other gun controllers e.g. GunCon are not gimmicks to me, as they did what they were meant to.  It's not like they promised shooting, and then failed to live up to the promise of shooting.

The recent motion controllers (Wiimote, Move, Kinect) looked fun and promised revolutionary gaming, but then people realised the limitations, and compounded by a lack of really compelling uses in games, they did not live up to the promise.  Something like SharpShooter for example looked awesome (you have aim, trigger, movement, reload, etc. nicely integrated) but in practice was a terrible way to play shooters.  To more or less extent, these are gimmicks.



My 8th gen collection